Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday January 19, 2016 @09:24AM
from the buy-local-or-else dept.

mrspoonsi writes with Business Insider's report that presidential candidate Donald Trump says he'd like to make Apple "start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of other countries."
From the article: Trump's ultimatum to the most valuable company in the world was made towards the end of a 45-minute speech he gave at Liberty University in Virginia on Monday. The most popular candidate in the Republican party said he would impose a 35% business tax on American businesses manufacturing outside of the United States. Apple has manufactured its Mac Pro at a factory in Texas since 2013, but the vast majority of its products (including the iPhone) are largely made and assembled in China. How Trump would force Apple's supply chain, which relies heavily on a vast network of suppliers and large factories throughout Asia, to be brought stateside remains unknown. Apple CEO Tim Cook recently called the U.S. tax code "awful for America." If Trump (or anyone) thinks this is a good idea, why start or stop with Apple?

Trump just says stuff because he doesn't actually know how anything works. Business included. He's a complete moron who just got handed a silver spoon at birth. His apparent success should not be any indication he has a clue how anything other than bribing works in the world. He know nothing about politics, nothing about business, nothing about people, nothing about the world. He's gotten were he is simply because of money.

Trump just says stuff because he doesn't actually know how anything works. Business included. He's a complete moron who just got handed a silver spoon at birth. His apparent success should not be any indication he has a clue how anything other than bribing works in the world. He know nothing about politics, nothing about business, nothing about people, nothing about the world. He's gotten were he is simply because of money.

Trump just says stuff because he doesn't actually know how anything works. Business included. He's a complete moron who just got handed a silver spoon at birth. His apparent success should not be any indication he has a clue how anything other than bribing works in the world. He know nothing about politics, nothing about business, nothing about people, nothing about the world. He's gotten were he is simply because of money.

Sounds like every US president ever. What exactly was your point?

well, we know obama wasn't handed a silver spoon at birth. they don't have those in kenya:)

Let's lower the corporate tax rate...we have "on paper" the highest in the world.

I say on paper, because the big boy corps, have enough tax attorney's and experts on payroll (whole departments in fact) to find every loophole to pay less and less, while the SMALL businesses get stuck paying the high fees and taxes.

So, let's lower it to a much lower rate, one that competes with the rest of the world, but at the same time...cut out all the deductions and loopholes. You pay x% on profits after your expenses, period.

Doing that would encourage businesses to come back to the US.

Rather than penalize, let's make it a business favorable environment to have your business on US soil, AND have US workers doing the work.

I don't think a business or a person should have a tax form longer than 1-2 pages long.

I doubt this will come about, in that it would take too much power away from congress over us all.

I think the trick to this is getting both sides to really do their part, meaning I'll lower the tax rate but we have to close these other loopholes. Lowering the rate is the easy part since that's what people cheer. Closing loopholes always gets angry responses from whoever just lost a loophole. That's why loopholes tend to stay put or, if closed, are matched by a new loophole. It's not unlike amnesty programs for illegal aliens. I think a lot of people would be fine letting them stay in exchange for no more illegal immigration. Reagan tried that back in 1986 and gave amnesty in exchange for tougher border controls to stop the flow. The amnesty happened but of course millions more illegals came. Getting both sides to follow through is the hard part. A simpler tax process would also increase transparency, which in general is a good thing.

I, too, would like to see MUCH simpler tax codes. If someone is required to file them, then said person should be able to understand it (I'm mostly referring to personal taxes here). That's often not the case.

However, your solution:

You pay x% on profits after your expenses, period.

... leaves bigger holes than any that currently exist. Re-invest profit into the company by any means, or pay it out as bonuses to top execs, or just buy stuff. Make sure there's a small profit every couple years so you can stay incorporated, and the tax would end up as some infinitesimally small amount.Most of the laws had the best intentions at one point, like your comment, but those need to continually be patched, which results in the current situation.

... leaves bigger holes than any that currently exist. Re-invest profit into the company by any means, or pay it out as bonuses to top execs, or just buy stuff. Make sure there's a small profit every couple years so you can stay incorporated, and the tax would end up as some infinitesimally small amount.
Most of the laws had the best intentions at one point, like your comment, but those need to continually be patched, which results in the current situation.

I disagree - what you're saying would happen (excepting bonuses, maybe) is the point. If they're not going to give it up to taxes, then they can use it on expansion... and while they may pay some people more, keep in mind they have to pay payroll taxes, too, paid for both by employees and employers. Especially in this case, if you are giving bonuses to high income employees, that bonus is being taxed on the employee at the highest tax rate, so they're just pushing the taxes to someone else - in either case, either the company expands (good for the economy overall) or the taxes are collected from payroll on both ends.

I actually do not support this method of taxation at all, but since it's unlikely we'll get rid of it, a lower rate with no loopholes will do more to bring back businesses and/or improve our economy and/or increase tax revenue.

The only people that suffer are the accountants that have to be paid buckets of money finding loopholes.

It's estimated that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on tax compliance every year. I'd rather companies hold on to that and be taxed, or expand.

The biggest business expense isn't taxes (for the most part since they're variable), it's labor. Not just the labor to assemble parts and what not but on the supplier side too. That's where the US has the biggest issues, not to mention unions, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for jobs coming back to the US and am an employer myself for a small company of 30 people. We get *slammed* for taxes (37.5 percent is what plan for all in state/feds on all "profit") even using a competent and well-respected accounting firm. Even "profit" is a lie, we keep all the "profit" in the company. So when we have a not so great year that "profit" is gone even though we've paid taxes on it and we can't spread out the loses like the big guys. So I get stuck with a $100K tax bill every year and only have a $170K salary. Sucks balls.

If people didn't have to borrow half a career's income just to have a place to even sit and starve to death in peace, they could work for much cheaper. I live quite luxuriously off a budget that a full-time minimum-wage job could fund if it weren't for rent, and savings to eventually escape from rent, and taxes on the money I have to earn to pay for those things, adding up to almost 300% of what I actually need to consume for that comfortable lifestyle.

At least four of his businesses have gone under, but somehow he's managed to get out unscathed.

Trump was on the hook for his first business bankruptcy because of a personal guarantee on a loan or property. After that scared him straight, he never put up his personal guarantee again. He was once quoted that having a business in bankruptcy didn't concern him since he had 30+ other businesses that were doing just fine.

every bankruptcy means someone does not get paid what they are owed. The biggest problem with trump declaring bankruptcy so often is he is screwing over his creditors and has no problem with it, making him is a corporate welfare queen. Now what do you think he would do if he became President?

How do you think _anybody_ gets rich? It's by gambling with other people's money If you win the bet, you get paid off big time, if you lose, you pass off your losses to some other poor sucker (usually the bank that lent you money), or simply declare bankruptcy. Do this enough times, eventually you get rich. What I can't understand is, giving the number of times Trump-controlled businesses have gone bankrupt and screwed their creditors, why does anyone still lend him money? Other than lucrative bribes, I can't think of any logical reason.

What I can't understand is, giving the number of times Trump-controlled businesses have gone bankrupt and screwed their creditors, why does anyone still lend him money? Other than lucrative bribes, I can't think of any logical reason.

Having read up on him before, from what I remember he's never filed chapter 7, normally he's filed chapter 13. That means that the creditors still got their money back; just perhaps not as quickly or with as much interest as they would have otherwise gotten. Indeed, he's good at keeping his different businesses separate. So it's not actually Trump borrowing money, but company A, B, or C that's owned/run by Trump that's borrowing money.

Trump just says stuff because he doesn't actually know how anything works.

It's not just Trump that says dumb things like this. This exact argument I've heard repeated on Slashdot before (that US companies should make all production domestic.)

It sounds nice, but it just won't work in reality. It *might* work for somebody like Apple with sky high profit margins, however most companies have much smaller margins. In order for them to be able to compete at all in the global economy (and make no mistake about it, it IS a global economy now, has been for a century) they have to be able

Basically what it'd do is split manufacturing at best. US electronic manufacturing would pick up to avoid high tariffs, but the cost would be passed on to Americans as well. All other countries would continue the same with cheaper prices. I imagine there would be unscrupulous imports to avoid the tariffs, as well. It doesn't really solve a problem, either, as US profits are taxed in the US and foreign profits would still be deferred and could be used in manufacturing costs and thus avoid taxes, just like th

Basically what it'd do is split manufacturing at best. US electronic manufacturing would pick up to avoid high tariffs, but the cost would be passed on to Americans as well. All other countries would continue the same with cheaper prices. I imagine there would be unscrupulous imports to avoid the tariffs, as well. It doesn't really solve a problem, either, as US profits are taxed in the US and foreign profits would still be deferred and could be used in manufacturing costs and thus avoid taxes, just like they are now.

The funny part is that this is already happening in certain industries. A number of manufacturers are moving back to the US. What is driving this is the complete automation of factory floors, keeping costs more inline with offshore production. When you get rid of the labor force, you're next biggest expense is shipping and logistics.

So, while I dislike Trump and feel that this was one of those stupid throw-away political lines, there is some validity in moving manufacturing back to the US while keeping p

Trump just says stuff because he doesn't actually know how anything works....

Wrong.

Trump says these things because he knows how the media works. He makes wild statements because it gets media outlets, bloggers, and every day people talking about him. As long as he's in the news and in the headlines his "stock" rises. It's very similar to how pundits generate attention [and ultimately profits] for their media businesses, Trump just happens to be running for president. This most recent claim, like so many others before, is outrageous, but Trump knows it will never come back to him to follow through on and it serves his purposes now. Just look at this page and the 350+ comments in less than 5 hours all talking about Trump! The fact that the nation doesn't just ignore Trump's inane statements and we hang on his every word is as big of a problem as he is.

I could use many bad words to describe Donald Trump, but dump or stupid is not one of them.

What is interesting about a potential Bloomberg run is that it might split both parties votes. While Bloomberg has deal breaker positions on abortion, gun rights, size of government and others for many conservatives, the big business/military industrial complex/donner class likes him. That isn't a huge number of conservative/GOP voters but its a big slice of the GOP money pie.

If Bloomberg runs than essentially the election become entirely unpredictable. There will be no modern examples to compare the situation to even remotely.

I'll bite. I'm far from a Sanders supporter, but he's better than Hillary on the Democrat's side. He's not a communist, he's an avowed European-style socialist. Now, I'm not in agreement with him that European socialism is the way to go - I think that well-regulated capitalism means more economic growth. With that said, the difference is small - we're talking a percentage point of growth per year or something on that order. That's significant in a mature economy, but not worth demonizing the guy. He's not exactly "dangerous" economically - not one of his socialist policies is going to be taken up in congress.

He has his positives, too. For a Democrat, he has a very reasonable attitude towards guns. He also has a strong sense of civil liberties, which lack in all of the other candidates on both sides except for Paul.

It's a matter of degree, which is my point. European socialists advocate a strong safety net, with strong government pensions and government-provided healthcare. The primary purpose of corporations - in a European socialist's view - are to provide jobs.

This is different - but not so different - from the traditional American model. Which model is more conducive to economic growth is - IMHO - self-evident. But not all people feel that economic growth is worth the drawbacks. I can respect that, even if I think they are mistaken.

I'm not sure what you are arguing. I've already said that I don't agree with his economic policy, so you won't get much argument from me on that score.

As for him visiting communist countries when he was mayor of Burlington, so what? He's never advocated communism here in the US. He's not yammering on about Marx and the dialectic - he's talking about the Nordic countries.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't much matter. His economic policies are a complete non-starter. I don't even think they'd get through

Sanders' thing is bribing the voters with my money. Turns out, it's pretty popular, no matter the current year. Communism is a disease.

Hi. I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter. I agree with your assessment, that he's bribing the voters with your money [assuming you make enough for that to be true]. He's bribing the voters with my money too [and I still support him nonetheless]. That's not why I'm responding to your comment.

You suggest that this approach is "pretty popular, no matter the current year". What basis do you have for making this claim? At face value, it seems intuitive. However, based on my understanding of political history in the

That's because the poor (mostly white) southerners who take more government benefits as a group don't understand their own ideology.

My own brother was happily collecting benefits after drug-addicting, smoking and drinking himself into an umemployable wreck of a human being considered himself a "staunch" Reagan conservative up until his sad, but not unexpected, early death.

Sanders' thing is bribing the voters with my money. Turns out, it's pretty popular, no matter the current year. Communism is a disease.

communism is not a good system, but Sanders does not support communism, he supports some socialist policies, which do make sense. The US has double the cost of healthcare compared to the next closest country. And if you work your whole life and do everything right including having health insurance why should you have to declare medical bankruptcy from getting a treatable illness? Privatization of healthcare makes absolutely no sense and there are other issues where privatization is also dumb.

It's amazing how many people love to conflate Socialism and Communism. Part of the blame can be placed on the USSR and China. When the biggest two communist examples people can think of bill themselves as Socialist Republics, it is an understandable mistake. The fact that it's automatically associated with EVIL and ANTI-AMERICAN, is a different matter altogether. You would think that the Red Scare of the 40s and 50s was relegated to the past, but I guess it's as alive and well as racism.

Socialism is something practiced already in this country. We have Social Security, interstate highways, public libraries and parks, Medicaid, just to name a few programs that most people are pretty OK with. In fact, most of the people who are anti-socialism would shout to the heavens if you tried to take away any of these benefits.

Socialism can coexist with nearly any type of political system. Communism is (at least by definition) a direct rule by the people (although this has never been fully realized in practice). Socialism allows for personal property, modified capitalism, religious practice; Communism does not. Communism requires centralized economic controls; Socialism does not.

My personal favorite are the RWNJs who further conflate Socialism and Communism with Fascism. Then they throw a "Liberal" in there, because that makes seven kinds of no sense. I guess serving two 4-year terms and peacefully stepping down from office is totally the way a fascist dictator would behave.

True communism has never been practiced on a major scale. Current communism countries get stuck at the command level economy setup stage. And to keep the peasants from revolting they give away a bunch of stuff.

Norway and Sweden are closer to true communism than China,Cuba or russia(was).

Both Norway and Sweden ditched command economic mode in favor of regulated capitalism.

That is the mode Bernie wants for the is and will a decent goal, won't happen with the number of hypocrite we have in this country. If you vote republican and accept Medicare and social security you are a hypocrite.

If you vote republican and accept Medicare and social security you are a hypocrite.

Hardly! That is not how a representative democracy works. You vote for who and to a lessor extent how you think things ought to be and then you play by the rules the winners set for society. Its does not make someone a hypocrite for accepting medicare or social security, while voting to end them. Since that person does not get a choice about paying medicare and social security taxes while they are working, they are as entitled as everyone else to accept the benefit.

I agree with your overview of the politics but... this is off the rails:

If you vote republican and accept Medicare and social security you are a hypocrite.

How so?

Is one expected not to live in the country or use the services that one is paying for? I mean, if I vote against installing a sauna in my strata, but the majority vote carries it, am I now a hypocrite if I USE the sauna that gets built and that I am now helping to pay for?

Furthermore the connection between voting republican and medicare is pretty tenuous. There's lot of reasons to vote for a party, and its a complicated decision.

If you vote republican and accept Medicare and social security you are a hypocrite.

I'm not a republican, but frankly, that's absolute horseshit until people can opt out. What you really want to do is allow people to opt out, see all the rich folks opting out, and the poor republicans (the majority of recipients of government benefits, I might add) will understand the problem with their "ideology."

The trouble is, depending on your age, you almost HAVE to take them when you get to retirement age.

This money was forceably taken from my pay over many decades, rather than giving me a choice on how best to invest it for myself. If given that choice early on in my employment history, I could have e invested it and I'd be more well off by having that money grow more, and I could use it.

But when you get close to retirement age, well....you've thrown so much money into the pot, it makes no sense not to try to draw a little of it back from the well.

Guess what? It's going to be taken from you no matter what.

People seem to think "social safety net? That's for irresponsible people". Guess what? There are irresponsible people, and they cost you and I money. Either we plan for this and accommodate the fact that there will be irresponsible people and make it so everyone gets to benefit, for we pay for it via increased costs in everything.

Let's take a few examples. Say you save for retirement. You don't want to give money for stuff that others need like social security because you're responsible, so you want to keep that money for yourself and invest it giving yourself a nice retirement account. Well, what about those who didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't? The end up on the street, and do petty crimes and all that. If they shoplift, well, the stores have to pay for the missing goods, increased security, etc., by raising prices. We all suffer because we, the responsible ones, pay for that increased cost. If they get caught and are sent through the justice system, WE again pay for the policing, the courts and the jails. In other words, we pay.

Healthcare - again, people seem to think they can buy insurance, or just save it themselves. Well, there's a group who qualified for neither, or again, could not, would not, save for health. They get sick, they go to the ER, and everyone else pays for the medical treatment. Even worse, emergency room medical treatment is among the most EXPENSIVE treatment there is - so not only are we paying for other's irresponsibility, we're paying for the most expensive care available.

I can go on and on and on. But it basically shows that you DO have to plan for others to be irresponsible because it's human nature, and if you don't, you end up paying for it. It's why countries have social security nets, national healthcare, etc - because really, you're going to pay anyhow, so why not pay to make it efficient and available to everyone rather than those who end up gaming the system and costing us all.

And it's why ideas like basic income are being reinvigorated, because we're all going to pay somehow or other.

Anyone who claims otherwise is just looking to reduce their tax bill in favor of making you pay more.

He is not actually going to build that wall on the Mexican border, and whatnot.

I suspect that he has no idea at all what this whole 'checks and balances' thing actually does.

That said, yeah, he's pandering his ass off, just like Sanders and Clinton (and numerous others) are happily doing as I type this. There will be no border wall, no free college/healthcare, no auditing of the Fed (sadly), no tax reforms (in *either* direction)... none of that shit.

Of course, the angry redneck and the stupid sophomore both have one thing in common: You can't tell either one of them a damned thing right now which refutes their little dreams.

Of course, what that means is that the lag time between brain and appearance of rampant idiocy is about as low as we could get without hive-mind telepathy.

On top of that, years of "reality TV" and general "popular person worship" have inured us to the existential agony of watching people the average IQ of a dead slug acting like idiots and assholes on TV and in the media.

This is, more or less, why all our presidential candidates are slack-jawed mouth-breathers. Because nobody has to try harder than that.

Of course, the angry redneck and the stupid sophomore both have one thing in common: You can't tell either one of them a damned thing right now which refutes their little dreams.

That's not limited to "the redneck and stupid sophomore". Damn near the entire population of the US is like that anymore. It's strange how we have better communication and more access to information than ever before in this country, and people are more narrow minded than ever.

The Internet has made it possible for anyone, no matter how marginal, to "prove" that their ideas are "right" because they can find like-minded people spewing the same nonsense.

As Rudyard Kipling's monkeys chanted: "It must be true, because we all say so!"

Of course, the angry redneck and the stupid sophomore both have one thing in common: You can't tell either one of them a damned thing right now which refutes their little dreams.

That's not limited to "the redneck and stupid sophomore". Damn near the entire population of the US is like that anymore. It's strange how we have better communication and more access to information than ever before in this country, and people are more narrow minded than ever.

I don't buy it. I think that most people are considered and reasonable. I think that the extremes are just more interesting and consequently receive disproportional attention.

Not everyone who votes Republican is a fundamental Christian NRA wingnut. Not everyone who votes Democrat is a tree hugging, socialist nutjob.

I believe that the truth (as is usually the case in my experience) is somewhere in the middle. Most people just want to live and not be hassled.

You may vote repub because you are fiscally conservative. You may vote dem because you care about social programs... I don't know the reasons people vote the way they do, but in my experience we all have the same basic desires.

Besides, our system of government doesn't really give all that much power to the president without the help of the other branches. So no matter who is president, you are pretty much guaranteed the same thing you have now.... for better or worse... I think that is by design.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely lean left and I think it would really say something about this country if Trump were to win, but I also know that even if he does, nothing will change. It will just be the same thing we have now (with slightly more comedy perhaps).... but nothing will really change...

I mean, think about the biggest thing Obama "rammed" through during his presidency... Obamacare... and now tell me how your life is now ruined because of it...

Not everyone who votes Republican is a fundamental Christian NRA wingnut. Not everyone who votes Democrat is a tree hugging, socialist nutjob.

I agree with this... however, the 10% on either extreme end do so much screaming that they get all the attention.

In my experience, most moderate people "don't discuss politics in polite company", leaving the only discussion to the extremes.

You may vote repub because you are fiscally conservative. You may vote dem because you care about social programs...

I wish I could pick and choose...

I'm a life long Republican, but Bernie Sanders is 100% right when it comes to health care. We have tens of millions of uninsured, tens of millions more who are underinsured or can't afford the copays/deductibles. Yet the United States o

Obama has passed less EO's than most other Presidents because he simply prefers to write Presidential Memorandum instead. Legally speaking they are the same, with the one exception that Memorandum don't have to be published to the Federal Register (they can be but they are not legally required to be except when the current Administration deems it necessary).

As of last year (and he's written several EOs and PMs since then) he had written more EOs and PMs combined than any President since Carter and more PMs than any President in history.

Of course, none of this takes away from the fact that Trump is just a blowhard and if given the chance would probably blow FDR's EO record away.

The problem is that Trump says stuff and he means it. He's absolutely right in all matters. He's right even when he demonstrably isn't. He's right even when experts tell him he's full of shit. He's right even if it means reality is wrong. And don't dare tell him he is wrong because suddenly you're an enemy to be demeaned and mocked.

It's not hard to find articles that suggest he is suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder and I can easily believe it.

One of the problems with political discourse is that the expectations are so low that Trump can literally say anything and there will people who say 'Politician X says stuff too' or 'They all do it'. However, Trump is different. He is isn't even bothering to try to couch his words in standard dog-whistle terms or not directly insulting massive parts of the electorate. The things he has said about specific women, about physically handicapped people, about particular racial and religious groups are far beyond anything we have seen for a national politician. It has significantly lowered the bar in terms of acceptable behaviour; and you're not helping by being an apologist for him by calling him typical.

Of course; anyone with a half a brain can see he's a bigtime bullshitter. But that doesn't mean you should dismiss what he says; you can a learn a lot from the BS he spouts about the people who support him. What this shows is that they're not conservative or libertarian; and they're certainly not liberal either. So what are they?

They're authoritarian.

Authoritarians are a different breed from conservatives or liberals; conservatives and liberals differ on issues of ideology, but authoritarianism is about the cult of personality. The key attribute of an authoritarian leader is the utter lack of intellectual integrity. Authoritarian leaders don't serve ideologies, they use them, even mixing and matches to suit the need of the moment.

So the election of an authoritarian would be news for anyone who holds a principled political position, no matter what position that leader claims to support. In this case Trump is running as a conservative, but here he's signaled his complete lack of interest in consistency with principled conservatism. And his admirers admire him all the more for it. They aren't interested in consistency, they're interested in a "strong" leader, by which they mean someone who will unashamedly give voice to their resentments -- of foreigners and of the elite. That should sound alarmingly familiar.

So yes, Trump doesn't intend to force Apple to make its computers here. But if he gets elected and it serves his purposes he'll try. If he fails, he'll just point that as proof he has to have more power.

While you're correct about being authoritarian, you're making a mistake in thinking that authoritarianism is different then conservative vs liberal. They're actually different axises on the political chart. You can have authoritarian conservatives, libertarian conservatives, authoritarian liberals (the American meaning of liberal) and libertarian liberals. Most successful politicians have been fairly authoritarian and to the right of the spectrum.Check out the political compass, even has a nice quiz you can

Yes, I know about the political compass, but I believe it is intrinsically flawed as a guide to authoritarian behavior. Yes, you can be located in the upper left or right hand quadrants in terms of your theoretical opinions, but authoritarian leaders will always do what's most opportunistic and self-serving regardless of what they say they're for on the left/right axis.

Take the Nazi Party -- aka the "National Socialists". Their early platform fits very poorly into the political compass model; or rather it fits rather neatly into the model in a misleading way. They were authoritarian leftists according to the political compass model, in particular they were corporatists -- which doesn't refer to rule by business corporations, but rather rule by institutions representing groups in society. They also had racist and nationalistic planks to their program which differ dramatically from other upper left-hand quadrant parties.

All of the positions espoused by the Nazi party have a simple, straightforward explanation: mass insecurity, leading to fear and resentment of foreigners and of the elite. The resentment of foreigners accounts for the "national" part of national socialism, and the resentment of the elite accounts for the "socialism". However when Hitler gained the chancellorship he had no more use for the anti-elitist strain in the Nazi party, so he quickly moved to purge the party of its socialist elements in the Night of Long Knives. This illustrated the behavioral unreliability of authoritarian leaders I'm talking about. According to his rhetoric Hitler was as national socialist as ever, but given the lack of interest of authoritarians in consistency that's mere lip service. Authoritarian leaders always act to consolidate their power; their views on the other axis are window dressing. And the nature of authoritarian followers is to follow regardless of the leader's ideological inconsistencies.

That's not to say that the wise authoritarian doesn't take some care in shifting his positions. I think this explains the vital role of anti-semitism in the success of Naziism. The Nazis were initially anti-capitalist and anti-communist; but by identifying both with Jews they could keep some pretense of consistency while coopting big business and playing footsie with Stalin. You see what's really wrong with capitalism is the Jews; so doubling down on the anti-semitism allows you to shift right because it was really the Jewish element of capitalism that was the problem. Of course it's all opportunistic nonsense, and trying to locate that nonsense on some political axis is a waste of time. The one consistent thing about the Nazis was they could be relied upon to consolidate their power.

I also think that left/right axis of the political compass is a gross oversimplification, but that's a story for another day. Yes, the political compass is better than collapsing all differences to a single axis, but it's still simplistic.

He is not actually going to build that wall on the Mexican border, and whatnot.

It's more than that. He won't be allowed to do much of what he's saying.

I live in California. Remember when Schwarzenegger was 'governator'? It was a disaster. He thought he could just bully everyone into doing what he wanted them to do, which of course wasn't going to work. He was blocked at every turn. That's how it would go with Trump as POTUS. You think Congress is hostile to Obama? It would be like a teddy-bear tea-party in comparison to how Congress would respond to Trump. He's an outsider, he's extreme, he's a blowhard, and he'd be blocked at every turn. He seems to think that he can just say 'jump!' and everyone will say 'how high, Sir?' because that's what he's used to, but it won't work that way. Trump as POTUS would probably be the least productive and positive Presidency this country has ever seen, assuming he didn't get impeached.

I would agree with your summary, except that we have had *very* bad presidents before. Its easy to forget that those scandals that occurred decades before we were born are just as real as the garbage going on in the present.

I think the most dangerous part about Trump is this "filter" (or lack thereof) problem he has on his mouth.

There are some people out there who will be stirred up by this so much that they will take action.

The most dangerous part about Trump being president is not that he would have any political power. I am sure the dems (and probably a lot of repubs) will block him ever step of the way should he be president. I think the problem is that the presidency will give his voice disproportionate power and when he

Ha! If only we had politicians who were that smart. Listen, my friend, nobody thought an idiot like Reagan could get elected. We've had thirty years of policies that have been disastrous to working people, the same working people who continue to vote Republican. The Republican Party decided to go after the racists, the religious nuts, and other right-wing loonies to gain votes. What they didn't count on was these people taking over the Party. Between that, and Fox News, they went from being the party of the rich, to being the party of the disaffected ignorant. Now, Trump comes along, and instead of speaking with a dog whistle, he says out loud everything the other Republicans only hinted at, and they love him for it. Don't kid yourself, the man could be elected.

For someone who claims to not be a politician, Trump is very good as politician-speak - the art of telling people you'll do things with no intentions/plans/ability to follow through on it.

Also, I thought Republicans didn't like the government interfering in business? Wouldn't forcing a company to redo its entire operations just to keep everything in America fall under government interference? How long until people realize that President Trump won't be able to do half the things he claims he'll do?

For someone who claims to not be a politician, Trump is very good as politician-speak - the art of telling people you'll do things with no intentions/plans/ability to follow through on it.

Also, I thought Republicans didn't like the government interfering in business? Wouldn't forcing a company to redo its entire operations just to keep everything in America fall under government interference? How long until people realize that President Trump won't be able to do half the things he claims he'll do?

If he pulled off half of what he claims, he would be 10x better than any previous candidate.

It always cracks me up when naive people ask "What does this politician believe in?" because the answer is ALWAYS the same and never changes. "The politician believes in nothing. He or she will say they believe in whatever it takes to get them elected or re-elected." Yes, YOUR guy too.

Trump is not a Republican, at least not in action or belief system. The real Republican is Ted Cruz, in actions and belief system. Until recently Trump was a registered Democrat. He's very far LEFT. He actually came out for taking money out of "rich" peoples bank accounts.

Unfortunately, the only thing in the Senate Ted Cruz is the head of, is the Senate Subcommittee on Space and Science (NASA).

And when Cruz runs up against someone reasonably intelligent, it clearly shows. In this hearing [youtube.com] before the Senate Subcommittee, watch as Cruz tries to subtly make his point that NASA was spending too much money on climate change. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden tactfully makes a fool of Cruz by pointing out some key points: 1) He doesn't know what numbers Cruz is talking about because they are not the official budget numbers (Cruz is a liar) and 2) the decrease in space exploration was directed by Congress to NASA to spend less (Cruz is a hypocrite).

What's the point if we're going to continue to let the corporations shell game their profits into tax free zones?

Also, 35% tax for doing offshore manufacturing, seems like isolationism to me. This is a brave new world, how about we put an environmental spin on it and carbon-tax the fuel required to ship the product. Factor the cost of relocating Miami into all the cargo jet fuel and manufacturing will "naturally migrate" closer to the point of consumption.

While I agree with your analysis about the fact that companies will find ways to legally avoid the tax ("loopholes"), it is unlikely that the cost of the iPhone will go up as a result. Non-commodity firms like Apple charge the highest price they can get away with in the marketplace, regardless of their costs. If they thought the same number of people would pay $50 extra for an iPhone, that is what the price tag would be already. When costs go up, in the short run, Apple just becomes less profitable because of the higher costs. In the medium run, the next generations of iPhones will tend to have a focus on cost cutting because competitors will have to lessen features to remain profitable under the new regulations, so Apple can afford to cut costs and still look better than the competition by comparison. In the long run, the decision to mass produce the next iWhatever will have to incorporate these extra costs in the evaluation of whether the total costs of R&D + production + regulatory costs are sufficiently less than the revenue they will get for it. If the costs are too great to produce the profit their investors demand, they will not produce the iWhatever.

True, apple will claim that this (or any) new government mandate will "require" them to increase prices by $x, but that is just lip service to try to avoid the policy from going into effect. And if it does go into effect anyways, then whatever extra they add onto the price is only done because they now believe that people will pay more (possibly because other manufacturers will reduce their product selection, and with decreased competition, Apple can increase prices).

Who cares? Really, I can see why some think what he is saying is pretty out there, but I am always a little shocked when the media that loves to pine on about how many jobs are leaving the US take issue with someone's plan to bring back or keep jobs in the US, most certainly manufacturing jobs. As far as the treaties go, do you really think the countries we have those with are following them to a T? A lot of them don't even follow world treaties and then go on and on about how they are champions of the terms of those treaties then later we find out they have been bullshitting everyone all along.

Trump said he would 'get' Apple to make their products in America, not 'make' Apple. There's a difference. He's not going to force Apple to come to America but convince them. He's going to improve the business tax codes which Tim Cooke has said is a driving force for Apple to make their products overseas. Trump's statement is not so outlandish as some world make it to be.

Here's what he actually said...

"We have such amazing people in this country: smart, sharp, energetic, they're amazing," Trump said. "I was saying make America great again, and I actually think we can say now, and I really believe this, we're gonna get things coming... we're gonna get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country, instead of in other countries."

... tax... which Tim Cooke has said is a driving force for Apple to make their products overseas.

Citation? Because I don't think he ever said that.

But I do know that he has said there is simply no way in the U.S. to get in one place the 10s of 1000s of workers with the equivalent of 2-year associates degrees that are required to keep those factories running.

Trump said he would 'get' Apple to make their products in America, not 'make' Apple. There's a difference. He's not going to force Apple to come to America but convince them. He's going to improve the business tax codes which Tim Cooke has said is a driving force for Apple to make their products overseas. Trump's statement is not so outlandish as some world make it to be.

Here's what he actually said...

"We have such amazing people in this country: smart, sharp, energetic, they're amazing," Trump said. "I was saying make America great again, and I actually think we can say now, and I really believe this, we're gonna get things coming... we're gonna get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country, instead of in other countries."

Of course the actual reason isn't taxes (the US's effective rate is pretty low) but manpower.

China has relatively cheap labour and a manufacturing sector with a ton of expertise. You might be able to stop current businesses from making the upheaval to move to China, but making a second upheaval to come back? Not with tax cuts. Trump's chances of convincing Apple to more their manufacturing are about the same as his chances of convincing Mexico to give him a free wall.

Trump isn't an unstoppable force of whatever, he's an incompetent buffoon who's dangerous for the sole reason that a bunch of people think he's qualified to drive the bus. I don't think he's all that different from Palin who was a political force for years despite massive and obvious red flags. I suspect he'll similarly fade away when people realize just how incompetent he is and they start feeling embarrassed to follow him, whether it happens before the Republican's nominate their candidate is the big question.

Every time some politician makes a promise like this I always think, Sure but because of globalisation it will always be the smaller part of the company that resides in the first world. Therefore the logical outcome to any single government's moves against a corporation would be the decamping of said corporation to another jurisdiction. i.e. Apple would move out of the US entirely and place their headquarters in a more friendly nation.

Donald Trump says he'd like to make Apple "start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of other countries."

He can like whatever he wants but it's not possible for a lot of reasons.1) Labor costs are too high in the US to be competitive on assembly work of that scale. I know this because I run a company that does contract assembly of electric products. Even Apple's profit margins aren't fat enough to make that possible.2) The supply chain for all the components does not exist in the US. That business left the US a looong time ago.3) Apple is actually a software company [youtube.com]. If you put Android on their gear, nobody is going to pay a premium for it. The margins on their product are decidedly not in building the computer and Apple has no particular manufacturing expertise.4) Apple doesn't build their computers. They hire other companies to do it. Same with Dell, HP, etc. The companies that actually build these things aren't US companies.5) The president doesn't have the authority to do that and even if he did it would be a REALLY stupid idea. The only thing he would accomplish is to make it difficult for those companies to compete. Samsung isn't going to start building their machines in the US. Manufacturing goes where the costs are lowest and frequently that is not in the US thanks to high labor costs and in some cases regulations.

If Trump (or anyone) thinks this is a good idea, why start or stop with Apple?

It isn't a good idea and Trump is pandering. He knows perfectly well that it isn't possible, practical or a good idea. But he's more than happy to lie to people too dumb or ignorant to understand supply chain economics.

provides the logic most often used to justify offshoring and "free" international trade. However, the theory (logical as it is) is founded on a number of premises. A number of these premises held centuries ago but not so much any more. There is, notably, the premise that "factors of production" (e.g., factories and resources) cannot easily be moved. And money and credit were supposedly not conjurable at whim from nothing but government dictat. GIGO, even if the machine can run for some time on garbage and momentum.

Its effectively a disguised import tariff and the US has gone to a lot of trouble to get "free trade" agreements with many countries, or alternatively deals with minimal customs duties. He'll end up with the regulatory bodies saying that this form of tax is illegal under the agreements and the USA would have to pay a lot of compensation

I listen to Rush Limbaugh's show every couple of weeks and I know he's currently hawking at least two products: Donald Trump and Apple technology. By focusing on one of Rush's biggest advertisers (Apple), maybe Trump ensures he dominates Rush's show (as Rush tries to thread the needle between defending Apple and not trashing Trump) for a few more days?

(I don't think the effect of Rush's power in the primary polls can be underestimated. When he was hawking Scott Walker, Walker led in the polls. When he stopped hawking Walker, the guy dropped down to something like 1% support.)

This seems like evidence that Trump doesn't really understand macro-economics. The reason why manufacturing of consumer goods was shipped overseas is because it was discovered that we couldn't afford the consumer goods as well at higher prices to pay American workers to make the goods. Thus, we moved the manufacturing overseas to bring down the price point to something more palatable to the typical American consumer. There is a far more complex economic issue going on here. We need to peel back the layers of the onion and find out answers to some real questions:

1) Why do goods cost what they do? What are the components of the cost?

2) Why can Americans afford to buy more product at a different price point than others. That has to do with wages and costs of goods.

All of these are inter-related. There are better presidential candidates to get into these details than Trump and probably less biased.

This is practically boring by Trump standards. It's not even insane- it's protectionism. This has a long history, and in some industries is generally tolerated or even desired (by more than just fringe groups), in some amount. What Trump is describing isn't of the normal sort, of course- it's extreme and would cause havok in a number of industries.

Like much of Trump's rhetoric, it assumes powers that presidents don't have. Trump presumably knows this, and is undeterred, because he wants to be elected, and his track is populist screed, so off he goes.

The only thing he says on this that has some merit is his brief rant about Boeing. A Boeing plant will give China access to seriously new tools and methods that they currently haven't been able to copy from the shortsighted companies that make factories in China and have them duplicated by a Chinese company a few years later. I don't know if this is worth some federal action, however, and certainly a president isn't the one to make the call.

To answer the question, if you listen to Trump, he wouldn't stop with Apple, he'd go on a rampage of magically teleporting factories around and tossing out tariffs that are likely banned by treaty for decades.

It's not surprising for a populist to promise protectionism, and it's the least scary thing on his agenda. Destroying a few dozen industries is nothing compared to what he's promised internationally or for civil rights lol

Our government should encourage Foxconn to build a plant in the US. That way Apple, Microsoft and other US company products can be built in the US. A tax break for all companies manufacturing in the US for North American, and other, distribution would go a long way.

Yes and every of those companies skew their annual/quarterly reports of profits and reallocate a good portion of those recorded profits from the U.S. and say they got it from Europe or Asia where the corporate tax is a lot less.

What are you talking about? The main complaint about Apple is that they didn't "repatriate" their profit overseas. To be absolutely clear on this: Apple makes money by selling products overseas. These days more and more money is being made in Asia as markets there get bigger. Apple didn't "skew" the books as you imply. Now Apple (like every other company) has two choices when it comes to this money: 1) keep it overseas or 2) repatriate it by moving it back to the US. To do #2, they have to pay 40% taxes.